Techniques to determine big sagebrush subspecies in seed lots and - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Techniques to determine big sagebrush subspecies in seed lots and why it’s important BRYCE RICHARDSON USDA FOREST SERVICE, RMRS, PROVO, UTAH

Outline o Does determining big sagebrush subspecies matter o Seed weight findings o Analysis of BLMs seed purchases o Use of a plate spectrophotometer for empirical measurements of UV fluorescence o Development of a seed testing protocol

Subspecies: does it matter? o Research has shown big sagebrush subspecies occupy different habitats: o Mtn big sagebrush – higher elevation, mesic o Basin big sagebrush – lower elevation, deep soils o Wyoming big sagebrush – lower elevation, dry shallow soils o But overlap can occur at small spatial scales depending on the environmental heterogeneity N. Shaw o Seed collection perspective

Subspecies: does it matter? o BLM and Forest Service policy states that the right seed has to be place in the right place o The mindset has been taxonomic purity is key o Big sagebrush is certified to subspecies based on onsite evaluations o However, because of scale at which seed is collected and the scale at which restoration is conducted few if any seed collections are purely one subspecies o Two factors that would better ensure establishment and resiliency of sagebrush restoration: 1. Post collection evaluation of the composition of subspecies 2. Matching climate of seed collection to restoration site (seed zones)

Seed weight study: Seeds collected from 3 different environments Native environment Majors Flat Orchard Garden Elev (m) MTCM o C MTWM o C MAP (in) Climate Majors, UT 2105 -4.7 20.8 20.2 Cool/wet Orchard, ID -2.9 25.0 10.1 Warm/dry 974

Mixed model results Random effects df Variance SD P value Collection 3 0.0116 0.1080 0.748 Year × Collection 5 0.0247 0.1573 0.004 Population × (Year × Garden) 118 0.0963 0.3104 <0.0001 Family × (Population × (Year × Collection) 443 0.1272 0.3566 <0.0001 Residual 0.0466 Fixed effects Estimate SE P value 2x- tridentata (intercept) 1.7655 0.1044 0.0032 4x- tridentata 0.7150 0.1096 <0.0001 2x- vaseyana 0.5682 0.0943 <0.0001 4x- vaseyana 1.0412 0.1286 <0.0001 wyomingensis 0.9926 0.0751 <0.0001 Richardson et al 2015

Confidence intervals 99% Confidence intervals • No overlap between 2x-tridentata and wyomingensis • Expect seed lots with seed weights > 2.2 mg would have a higher proportion of Wyoming big sagebrush Richardson et al 2015

Comparison of subspecies weight parameters to commercial seed lots Blue lines = Wyoming big sagebrush Red lines = basin big sagebrush Dashed lines = 99% CIs Smoothed distribution based on 10 weighs Most seed lots labeled as Wyoming big sagebrush contained only a small fraction of this subspecies and and were largely composed of Basin big sagebrush

Does humidity effect seed weight? ◦ Tested seed weight at room humidity Humidity treatment effect on seed weight (20%) and treatments at 33% and 68% 3.1 ◦ Treatment for 2 hrs, 4 hrs and 2 days 2.9 2.7 ◦ No change between room humidity 2.5 and 33% and < 0.1 mg between 20% 2.3 and 68% humidity 2.1 1.9 1.7 1.5 Room Temp MgCl 33% 33% Humidity 68% Humidity 68% humidity (2 (2hr) Humidity (2hr) (4hours) (2hr) days) ARTRW WP ARTRW 356 ARTRW N-NVHS ARTR Chained 13 ARTR Unchained 8

Cytotype frequency vs. seed weight • Relationship between seed weight and cytotype r = 0.88 • Weight > 2 mg / 10 seeds increases the frequency of wyomingensis

UV fluorescence to determine ssp vaseyana o UV fluorescence by blacklight is diagnostic for mtn big sagebrush o Caused by coumarin o Fluorescence based on visual rating (1 to 5) o Subjective o An empirical test for UV fluorescence would be a benefit to seed certification

Absorbance curve using a plate spectrophotometer o Absorbance curves from >600 plants from two common gardens o Subspecies was previously confirmed by flow cytometry, genetics, etc. o No overlap between mountain and basin/wyoming spp (95% CIs) o Wavelength 340 nm showed the greatest difference between subspecies

Mixed model results Random effects obs Variance SD P value Garden 2 0.0012 0.034 0.3 Population × garden 103 0.0142 0.120 2 e-6 Residual 0.0591 0.2431 Fixed effects Estimate SE P value Intercept (tridentata) 3.1873 0.0323 6 e-4 2x-vaseyana -0.6822 0.0423 < 2 e-16 wyomingensis -0.0246 0.037 0.490

Summary Environment: • Effects are small • These effects do not blur the seed weight differences between Basin and Wyoming big sagebrush • Or the difference in UV fluorescence between mtn big sagebrush and others Genetics (subspecies and cytotype differences): • Seed weight and UV traits are a strongly controlled by genetics • The most important factor in seed weight appears to be polyploidy and coumarin content for UV

Seed testing Pure collection of a particular subspecies are generally not a reality. Why try to certify to subspecies? Determine the composition of Basin and Wyoming plants in seed lots. Why is this important: Knowing the proportion of subspecies can help guide where seed lots would be most suitable. High proportion of Mixture of Wyoming Wyoming and Basin

Proposed seed testing protocol Goal: develop a standardize procedure for seed testing that fits within established AOSA seed testing guidelines and assesses the composition of subspecies in each seed lot The proposed test would include: 1. 8 random samples per seed lot, 100 seeds weighed per sample 2. Chaff from 8 samples used to determine UV fluorescence with spectrophotometer 3. A rating given by the BLM based on Wyoming/basin composition from data supplied by seed labs: ◦ Rating A: High Wyoming big sagebrush purity (≥95%) to rating D: ≥ Low wyoming seed (≤15%) 4. A similar rating system for mtn. big sagebrush vs. basin ssp on UV absorbance score

Final thoughts: Providing a fighting chance For better establishment and resiliency: • Identify the subspecies composition of seed lots • Use big sagebrush seed lots that are most tailored to the site • Prioritize restoration efforts to areas that will support sagebrush for decades

Collaborators and funding Collaborators: Nancy Shaw - RMRS, Matthew Germino - USGS, Technical assistance: Stephanie Carlson, Hector Ortiz, Alicia Boyd, Tanner Tobiasson, Deidre Jaegar, Alexis Malcomb, Matt Fisk, Erin Denney, Jan Gurr, Utah DNR, BLM, and numerous plant seed collectors, Udall laboratory BYU Funding: GBNPP, USFS National Fire Plan, Great Basin LCC, CLM Program

The preceding presentation was delivered at the 2017 National Native Seed Conference Washington, D.C. February 13-16, 2017 This and additional presentations available at http://nativeseed.info